Homosexuals In Rome Society

[Zeke]

Homosexuals had general tollernace in Rome because it was considered natural......but how come Augustus made laws to try to forbid practicing homoesexual relations?

 

Also what do you think the hetrosexual people of Rome thought of it?

 

Sorry about spelling,

Zeke

[Ursus]

Romans thought of sex in terms of power, not of gender.

 

Relations between males was generally fine, but the person of inferior social rank had to take passive sexual positions to the person of superior social rank. If someone of superior social rank was found to be the passive partner of someone of lesser rank, he would lose respect. He would be considered effeminate and under the influence of a social inferior.

 

Any male thought effeminate for any reason would be scorned, since he wouldn't be seen as manly enough to serve at his proper place in Roman society. The Romans would despise some of the gender bender roles associated in some modern homosexual quarters.

 

Also, men were still expected to marry and produce heirs. What Romans tolerated was bisexuality, not homosexuality. The notion that someone could be exclusively homosexual and not have anything to do with the opposite sex is a very modern one. The Romans would not tolerate same sex marriage, since it would be seen as a threat to the fundamental institution of Roman society - the family.

 

Augustus assumed power at a time when the social fabric of Roman society known to the early Republic had broken down. Divorce and adultery were rampant, less families were having children, and traditional Roman values had gone by the wayside in the pursuit of imperial wealth and power. He frowned on homosexuality because he wanted to discourage anything that might interfere with a revival of traditional Roman family values. However, there is speculation that he himself was homosexual, or at least that he started his career as the passive sexual partner of Julius Caesar (that's what his enemies gossiped about, at any rate). And if he had been sincerely more interested in men than women, it would explain why he was immune to the charms of Cleopatra when better men than he couldn't resist her.

 

Edited to add one final note: homosexuality (or, rather, bisexuality) was tolerated only among males. Females were not supposed to sleep with anything other than their husbands.

[P.Clodius]

I seemed to remember reading, Tacitus I think where he stated homos were clubbed to death in the legions.

[L. AVRELIVS GARRVLVS]

This is a spin on Ursus' answer: F.R. Cowell mentioned in his Life In Ancient Rome how the Romans could never satisfy their need for manpower, even with the large number of slaves taken in battle. Since homosexuality doesn't produce offspring, you can see why traditionalists would have a problem with it.

[Zeke]

Thanks for the info....Ocatavian and Julius Caeser I never thought about it that way.

 

Zeke

[Germanicus]

Caesar was certainly not happy with being accused of homosexual liaisons. There was an instance during his Gallic triumph where his soldiers sang a song that alluded to his rumoured afair with Nicomedes of Bythnia, he wasn't happy and had the centurions put an end to it. I think attitudes must have actually grown increasingly tolerant of bisexuality once individual Emeperors like Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius made a point of embracing all things Greek, for Hadrian this included Antonius' role as his passive lover. I believe the latin "fellator" referred to the person playing the passive riole in a homosexual oral encounter and was considered a gross insult. As you say Ursus - much better if a Roman to be the receiver in that situation !

[pompeius magnus]

The Greeks had a habit of being bisexual at times, and since Rome followed many Greek cultural aspects it was accepted. It is believed that Lucius Cornellius Sulla was somewhat of a homosexual in his early poor days. Greek mythology also shows homosexuality, such as the various stories of Zeus taking a mortal boy to be his servant, and of the myth of Jason and the Argonauts where Herakles stayed on board Argos to be with his boy lover while the other Argonauts were getting pleasured by the many women of Lesbia I think it was.

[Anticleia]

The greeks definatley had a habt of being bi-sexual! In the Illiad Achiles is said to be in love with the boy that impersonates him, I cant remeber his name. I'll come back and edit this when its not so late. There are many other refernces to homosexuality, we had the most part of a lecture on it!

[longbow]

are u thinking of Patroclus?

[Ursus]

In Greek society it was accepted that boys of adolescent age could take male lovers, and this was often with older males acting as mentors. Before someone raises the subject of pedophilia, it should be noted these boys were pubescent, not the pre-pubescent children that most pedophiles concern themselves with.

 

In the military, sexual relations between males were common. Especially in Sparta. It was thought that men who slept with each other would fight together as great comrades. Kind of ironic given modern debates in the American military about whether or not homosexuality decreases unit morale.

 

When they were older they were still expected to take a wife and breed, even in Sparta. Greek males were bisexual rather than homosexual.

[Zeke]

But do you think the Males ever started to "Love" each other?

[Ursus]

I'm sure it was known to happen. The literary example between Achilles and Patroclus is indicative of such things.

 

But sex was often about power, pleasure, and procreation rather than love. And even if someone was an honest to gods homosexual, they were still expected to take a wife, reproduce, and comply with normal cultural expectations.

 

The idea that sex and marriage should always be about love seems to be a rather modern one. A lot of Ancients seemed to have though that romantic love was a form of madness that was potentially dangerous (all those myths where Cupid shoots someone with an arrow, causing them to fall in love, often end badly).

[Jimbow]

A lot of Ancients seemed to have though that romantic love was a form of madness that was potentially dangerous (all those myths where Cupid shoots someone with an arrow, causing them to fall in love, often end badly).

 

 

Or could it be that the writers of the existing texts didn't really know or recognise true love as they were obviously very preoccupied with their own pursuits of.... writing texts?

 

In an age of "lack of paper, printers and blogs" mostly highly intellectual writings would have been reproduced in a form that could survive the centuries, surely? Used as teaching texts for example. We know that literary and scientific genius is not the best reference for affairs of the heart in modern times, so why would it really be any different then? An expression of ideals is one thing, but expression of true feelings, especially those experienced, and the 'simpler' ones, is another.

 

Jim.